An argument for God

[Rhyfelwyr]

As far as we know? The cause might however still be something so unfathomable out of our limited cognitive ability that we can't even begin to understand it until we evolved more.

If my argument is correct, then it is very much fathomable. You are falling back to that old "we don't know" argument (or rather, non-argument), which is useless as a refutation of a positive argument such as the one that I have presented. As I said, I claim to show what you say we cannot know. My claim is falsifiable and thus it is up to you to prove it to be incorrect. But to be fair you do attempt to do that below...

Also, how do you know something begun to exist? What MADE that thing exist? And what in turn made THAT thing exist? Maybe it's been there all along, and there has never been anything else.

We know with a good degree of certainty that the universe began to exist, and this is something that is as widely accepted within the scientific community as evolution. To quote a lecture from Stephen Hawking:

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted."

I have to say, it has been very interesting to see a number of atheists abandon the widely accepted scientific views of our day, in order to try to dismiss my argument... a bit of a role reversal from the evolution debates we have here.

But if we are to stick with the findings of the modern scientific establishment and accept that the universe began to exist, well then I refer you back to point 1 of my argument.

I can question your basic premise that something begins to exist, as that would mean to make something out of nothing... Which goes against logic reason... Not that I understand why you started to bother with logic reason.... I thought faith was enough for you

You do not understand what the word "faith" means, especially in relation to its use in the Bible. But I would prefer not to get de-railed by this little dig of yours. It is, as are most points which have been brought up by the atheists in this thread, totally irrelevant to the discussion.

2. The universe began to exist.

Why? Maybe Big Bang is an ever ongoing loop, where the universe expands, and then contracts back to a singularity, and then expands again aso aso aso... Every time maybe a little bit different, a little bit more complex.

This fringe, pseudo-scientific theory has been debunked by the discovery that the universe is actually expanding at an accelerating rate.

*critique of points 3-8

Since you haven't actually critiqued these points in an of themselves, but said simply that they don't stand without points 1 and 2, I maintain that my argument stands true according to the established science of our day which teaches that the universe began to exist.

And this is where the simulation is utterly crushing your argument.

It fullfills 1-5, but not 6-8. But by your own argument, something fullfilling 1-5 has to fullfill 6-8.

Arguing about the orginal universe being special in that aspect, because we can't sneak peak on both sides is not a logic law.

Edit: My previous comment in the earlier post was about the idea that we're living in a simulation. That has nothing to do with us being able to create computer simulations and that those run parallell to the idea of a universe created by someone with a will to create a universe.

Simulation theory doesn't crush my argument... in fact it doesn't even touch upon it. If we create a simulated universe, then that isn't somehow a separate universe from ours in any sort of metaphysical sense. It is just a part and parcel of our universe, which would exist as part of the code in our machines. Take that code away and the simulated universe disappears... it has no independent existence of its own. An AI world is no more metaphysically distinct from our own universe than a rock or a tree.

If he ever began to exist, he must have a cause. If he never began to exist, he does not exist.
If he does not need to have a cause, then neither does the universe need to have a cause and your first statement is simply wrong.

Well I disagree with each of these points.

1. "If he ever began to exist, he must have a cause." - Immediately your argument falls flat, as point 4 in my OP makes it clear that the creator did not begin to exist.
2. "If he never began to exist, he does not exist." - Nonsense, as the very concepts of time, order and beginning only exist within the material universe, which the creator by nature transcends.
3. "If he does not need to have a cause, then neither does the universe need to have a cause". - Did you even read point 1 of my argument?

The current scientific consensus is that there was a big bang which emerged from a singularity some time ago. This is when the laws of nature as we know them began to exist, but it is another leap to say that is when the universe itself began. I don't think anyone is arguing that the inside of a black hole does not exist simply because we cannot model what happens inside of one.

The scientific consensus is that the universe began to exist, and I think Stephen Hawking is a good enough authority on the matter:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."

Would be pretty pointless discussing something not 'real' in a matter like this. Whilst I have an interest in story-telling and reading a bunch of fantasy novels, that is unrelated to the matter at hand.

For me, there were big assumptions with no foundations, 'don't build your house on sandy land'. Don't mean that as a personal disrespect to Rhy, just that line of thinking doesn't work on me as I have seen through it all with myself, as I have tried to convince myself there is a 'god' to myself and failed. I went as far as delving into quantum mechanics to explain various occurrences.

Even if you remove the aspect of 'Personal God' and the magical supernatural elements, going for a more reasoned 'Deist' approach, erroneously trying to rationalise this into your belief-system doesn't prove that Jesus still turned water into wine.

As PVC pointed out, you are being rude, elitist, dismissive, refusing to engage with what I am actually saying, and bizarrely subjecting my comments to some sort of psychoanalysis instead of treating this as an intellectual discussion. And by this point you seem to have abandoned any attempt at dialogue and are just talking to yourself in platitudes.